-
Decision from Suboptimal Classifiers: Excess Risk Pre- and Post-Calibration
Authors:
Alexandre Perez-Lebel,
Gael Varoquaux,
Sanmi Koyejo,
Matthieu Doutreligne,
Marine Le Morvan
Abstract:
Probabilistic classifiers are central for making informed decisions under uncertainty. Based on the maximum expected utility principle, optimal decision rules can be derived using the posterior class probabilities and misclassification costs. Yet, in practice only learned approximations of the oracle posterior probabilities are available. In this work, we quantify the excess risk (a.k.a. regret) i…
▽ More
Probabilistic classifiers are central for making informed decisions under uncertainty. Based on the maximum expected utility principle, optimal decision rules can be derived using the posterior class probabilities and misclassification costs. Yet, in practice only learned approximations of the oracle posterior probabilities are available. In this work, we quantify the excess risk (a.k.a. regret) incurred using approximate posterior probabilities in batch binary decision-making. We provide analytical expressions for miscalibration-induced regret ($R^{\mathrm{CL}}$), as well as tight and informative upper and lower bounds on the regret of calibrated classifiers ($R^{\mathrm{GL}}$). These expressions allow us to identify regimes where recalibration alone addresses most of the regret, and regimes where the regret is dominated by the grouping loss, which calls for post-training beyond recalibration. Crucially, both $R^{\mathrm{CL}}$ and $R^{\mathrm{GL}}$ can be estimated in practice using a calibration curve and a recent grouping loss estimator. On NLP experiments, we show that these quantities identify when the expected gain of more advanced post-training is worth the operational cost. Finally, we highlight the potential of multicalibration approaches as efficient alternatives to costlier fine-tuning approaches.
△ Less
Submitted 23 March, 2025;
originally announced March 2025.
-
Causal thinking for decision making on Electronic Health Records: why and how
Authors:
Matthieu Doutreligne,
Tristan Struja,
Judith Abecassis,
Claire Morgand,
Leo Anthony Celi,
Gaël Varoquaux
Abstract:
Accurate predictions, as with machine learning, may not suffice to provide optimal healthcare for every patient. Indeed, prediction can be driven by shortcuts in the data, such as racial biases. Causal thinking is needed for data-driven decisions. Here, we give an introduction to the key elements, focusing on routinely-collected data, electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data. Using such da…
▽ More
Accurate predictions, as with machine learning, may not suffice to provide optimal healthcare for every patient. Indeed, prediction can be driven by shortcuts in the data, such as racial biases. Causal thinking is needed for data-driven decisions. Here, we give an introduction to the key elements, focusing on routinely-collected data, electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data. Using such data to assess the value of an intervention requires care: temporal dependencies and existing practices easily confound the causal effect. We present a step-by-step framework to help build valid decision making from real-life patient records by emulating a randomized trial before individualizing decisions, eg with machine learning. Our framework highlights the most important pitfalls and considerations in analysing EHRs or claims data to draw causal conclusions. We illustrate the various choices in studying the effect of albumin on sepsis mortality in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care database (MIMIC-IV). We study the impact of various choices at every step, from feature extraction to causal-estimator selection. In a tutorial spirit, the code and the data are openly available.
△ Less
Submitted 11 December, 2024; v1 submitted 3 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
-
How to select predictive models for causal inference?
Authors:
Matthieu Doutreligne,
Gaël Varoquaux
Abstract:
As predictive models -- e.g., from machine learning -- give likely outcomes, they may be used to reason on the effect of an intervention, a causal-inference task. The increasing complexity of health data has opened the door to a plethora of models, but also the Pandora box of model selection: which of these models yield the most valid causal estimates? Here we highlight that classic machine-learni…
▽ More
As predictive models -- e.g., from machine learning -- give likely outcomes, they may be used to reason on the effect of an intervention, a causal-inference task. The increasing complexity of health data has opened the door to a plethora of models, but also the Pandora box of model selection: which of these models yield the most valid causal estimates? Here we highlight that classic machine-learning model selection does not select the best outcome models for causal inference. Indeed, causal model selection should control both outcome errors for each individual, treated or not treated, whereas only one outcome is observed. Theoretically, simple risks used in machine learning do not control causal effects when treated and non-treated population differ too much. More elaborate risks build proxies of the causal error using ``nuisance'' re-weighting to compute it on the observed data. But does computing these nuisance adds noise to model selection? Drawing from an extensive empirical study, we outline a good causal model-selection procedure: using the so-called $R\text{-risk}$; using flexible estimators to compute the nuisance models on the train set; and splitting out 10\% of the data to compute risks.
△ Less
Submitted 16 May, 2023; v1 submitted 1 February, 2023;
originally announced February 2023.
